[173824] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 route annoucement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Aug 7 18:27:23 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1408071441300.12759@whammy.cluebyfour.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 15:26:26 -0700
To: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
It may also help to point out to them that under ARIN policy, if you need mo=
re than a single /48, you will get at least a /44. ARIN does not issue non-n=
ibble-aligned blocks any more.=20
You can get /12, /16, /20, /24, /28, /32, /36, /40, /44, /48, but you can't g=
et a /45, /46, or /47.=20
IMHO this is a good thing as it simplifies administration, DNS, and likely R=
PKI. It also reduces table bloat, and human factors related events. (At 3 am=
it turns out most people are bad at bit math).=20
If your ISP would like, I am available to provide ipv6 training or consultin=
g.=20
Owen
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 11:55, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org> w=
rote:
>=20
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, John York wrote:
>>=20
>> Hoping to not start a war...
>>=20
>> We (a multi-homed end-user site) are finally getting IPv6-enabled Interne=
t
>> connectivity from one of our ISPs. In conversations regarding our BGP
>> config, the ISP has balked at allowing us to advertise our ARIN-assigned
>> /44, saying things like, "do you know how many addresses that is!!??"
>=20
> Sounds like the ISP in question is in need of some serious IPv6 clue. The=
number of hosts means nothing, in terms of BGP advertisements. In fact, fe=
wer announcements is better. De-aggregation bloats the global routing table=
.
>=20
> Most carriers I've seen will accept IPv6 announcements as small as a /48.
>=20
> If your /44 was assigned by your RIR, and it's documented in their whois/r=
whois/route registry, your ISP really doesn't have a leg to stand on, regard=
ing not accepting your announcement.
>=20
>> Am I way off base in thinking this network size is not out of the norm? I=
>> know it's a lot of addresses (19 octillion-something?), but that
>> assignment was based on the same criteria that got us a /22 in v4 space.
>> Should accepting a /44 in v6 not be equivalent, policy-wise, to accepting=
>> a /22 in v4?
>=20
> The largest IPv6 prefix I saw in the global Internet routing table the las=
t time I looked (a few months ago) that wasn't for a special purpose was a /=
19.... ~33 million times larger than a /44.
>=20
> Your ISP should have more constructive things to do than hassling a custom=
er about announcing a /44.
>=20
> jms
